Diversity a Strength Hogwash...
Jul 27, 2017 19:04:14 #
Don G. Dinsdale
Loc: El Cajon, CA (San Diego County)
I Was Talking With a Friend of Mine The Other Day And He Asked a Searching Question, Why Do We Hear So Little, If Ever, About Black R****m??? Oh And He's Black, I've Known Him From When We Were Kids In Oakland, CA Growing Up Together... Don D.
E PLURIBUS UNUM
DIVERSITY A 'STRENGTH'? HOGWASH
Does Valuing Similarity Make One a 'H**er'?
Lindy Daniel ~ July 26, 2017 ~ WND
Day in and day out we are told that diversity is the best thing that ever happened to us – our greatest strength. What a load of hogwash. There is no evidence at all to support this delusion; that’s why you never hear any more than just the short, dogmatic catchphrases praising almighty diversity. But if brainwashing works, then who cares about reality, right? Well, reality does.
Diversity is not a strength in this country. In fact, it is difficult to find diversity as a strength anywhere. Let’s get real. Diversity is a weakness. Anywhere you find war, anywhere you find conflict, anywhere you find division, you are very likely to find diversity at the root of it. Racial diversity, ethnic diversity, religious diversity, political diversity – diversity is a weakness. Homogeneity is a strength. Sameness is a strength. Unity is a strength, and unity comes from similarity, not from diversity. Diversity requires great sacrifice. To have it, we must give up our unity.
This has not always been the politically incorrect secret that it is today. Back in 1787, Founding Father John Jay rejoiced that America was made up of quite non-diverse people of the same ancestry, language, religion and principles of government, and “very similar in their manners and customs.” Despite what we’ve been told, the original motto, “E Pluribus Unum” (“Out of many, one”), never meant “out of many races, nationalities, religions, and beliefs, one people”; it meant “out of 13 like-minded states, one union.” The timeless t***h is: Similarity is the glue that holds a union together; diversity is the crack that splits it.
The greater the diversity, the harder it is for a dose of similarity to pacify it. Similarity of one kind or another can only counterbalance so much diversity. The mostly Southern and Eastern European immigrants to (mostly Western and Northern European) America at the turn of the 20th century struggled with ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity to a point, but their overarching European cultural identity, shared Christian heritage and values, racial homogeneity, and a prevailing genuine desire to learn English and to become American (not for America to become like them) helped smooth out the differences and promote assimilation. The majority of today’s immigrants, however, share neither an ethnic heritage of Western society, traditional American ideals of limited government, traditional Christian societal values, nor linguistic or racial unity. In fact, they really don’t have much in common with America at large at all, and it’s not certain many of them want anything in common with us. This is not a promising mixture. Diversity was not what brought America through our first “Great Wave” of immigration. Similarity was. That similarity is lacking today.
However, we are assured today that diversity is meaningless – a mere difference in skin color, bedroom practices, or prayer time – and is completely irrelevant to our communal vision of what America is and should be. This is not true; diversity is not so trivial. People of diverse races, national origins, sexual identities and religions consistently tend to pursue vastly different and hotly conflicting political and social agendas. While individual exceptions abound, the diverse groups’ average priorities and f**gship causes are clear and recognizable and are key sources of political and social discord – year after year after year.
Diversity turns democracy into a disaster. Democracy is only pleasant when the majority is large. The smaller the majority, the greater the dissent. When barely half the population controls the other nearly half of the population, diversity is at its greatest and discord at its worst. When multiple diverse factions are each seeking their own diverse interests, then diversity is at its widest, and from there it’s a straight shot to tribalism – the antithesis of unity and opposite of strength.
At the neighborhood level, harmful effects of diversity have been identified in many studies. Harvard professor and political scientist Robert Putnam’s thorough study of 30,000 Americans found that (even after accounting for population density) “inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to r******r to v**e less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.” In other words, diversity does not unite communities; it destroys them.
To counter this bleak prognosis, we might ask, does diversity create any societal strengths at all? Surely the strength most commonly imagined is that exposure to diversity fosters the ability to live peacefully and respectfully in a diverse society and a diverse world. The critical question, then, is: Does being raised in and living in a homogeneous community (a community of more similar people) make one a h**eful bigot, incapable of seeing an issue from a different perspective, incapable of seeing diverse kinds of people as fellow human beings worthy of respect and fair treatment? Is every small town man, suburban mother, country girl and farm boy in greater homogeneous America a deplorable beacon of cruelty and h**e? My answer: of course not! Now, repeated exposure to diversity may tend to make one feel more comfortable in a diverse society, but this is a reflection of desensitization, not of moral improvement. There is nothing immoral or unnatural in living or in wanting to live among others who are similar to ourselves in both identity and ideals. Some level of difference and disagreement in our lives is inescapable, but that doesn’t mean we’re obligated to seek it out, or that there is anything wrong with us if we try to avoid it.
Avoiding diversity does not mean one “h**es” another group of people. One group does not need to be “bad” or “inferior” and another group “good” or “better” for difference itself to cause tension, either with a particular form of diversity as the actual dividing line in the argument, or with the presence of that diversity as the cause of the dividing line, splitting the other group and turning it against itself in an argument that would not exist if not for the presence of the diversity. Either way, avoiding the diversity avoids the division.
The benefits and value of diversity are vague, arguable and subjective and don’t hold much water compared to the benefits and value of homogeneity or similarity. Compelling a community, a people or a nation to welcome growing diversity in their midst or across their border is pushing a both risky and arbitrary value on people who may have a different opinion on the intrinsic value of diversity. If homogeneity is not a flaw, then why is it treated as a problem that needs to be fixed? If diversity is a weakness, then why is it so worshiped? Why is it so pushed?
Diversity is a judgment call, and pursuing it in one’s life and in one’s society is a personal decision, but the fact that diversity breeds disagreement and disagreement breeds division is difficult to reconcile with the claim that diversity makes us stronger. Similarity breeds like-mindedness, like-mindedness breeds unity, and unity makes a people strong.
Sacrificing unity for diversity may be our nation’s fate, but let’s shake off the politically correct blinders before we surrender to it. Diversity does not unite us. Diversity divides us. The more diverse we become, the weaker we become – and singing “Kumbaya” in 12 different languages isn’t going to change that. Enough of this “diversity is our strength” nonsense. Don’t believe everything your senator read in a fortune cookie.
http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/diversity-a-strength-hogwash/
E PLURIBUS UNUM
DIVERSITY A 'STRENGTH'? HOGWASH
Does Valuing Similarity Make One a 'H**er'?
Lindy Daniel ~ July 26, 2017 ~ WND
Day in and day out we are told that diversity is the best thing that ever happened to us – our greatest strength. What a load of hogwash. There is no evidence at all to support this delusion; that’s why you never hear any more than just the short, dogmatic catchphrases praising almighty diversity. But if brainwashing works, then who cares about reality, right? Well, reality does.
Diversity is not a strength in this country. In fact, it is difficult to find diversity as a strength anywhere. Let’s get real. Diversity is a weakness. Anywhere you find war, anywhere you find conflict, anywhere you find division, you are very likely to find diversity at the root of it. Racial diversity, ethnic diversity, religious diversity, political diversity – diversity is a weakness. Homogeneity is a strength. Sameness is a strength. Unity is a strength, and unity comes from similarity, not from diversity. Diversity requires great sacrifice. To have it, we must give up our unity.
This has not always been the politically incorrect secret that it is today. Back in 1787, Founding Father John Jay rejoiced that America was made up of quite non-diverse people of the same ancestry, language, religion and principles of government, and “very similar in their manners and customs.” Despite what we’ve been told, the original motto, “E Pluribus Unum” (“Out of many, one”), never meant “out of many races, nationalities, religions, and beliefs, one people”; it meant “out of 13 like-minded states, one union.” The timeless t***h is: Similarity is the glue that holds a union together; diversity is the crack that splits it.
The greater the diversity, the harder it is for a dose of similarity to pacify it. Similarity of one kind or another can only counterbalance so much diversity. The mostly Southern and Eastern European immigrants to (mostly Western and Northern European) America at the turn of the 20th century struggled with ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity to a point, but their overarching European cultural identity, shared Christian heritage and values, racial homogeneity, and a prevailing genuine desire to learn English and to become American (not for America to become like them) helped smooth out the differences and promote assimilation. The majority of today’s immigrants, however, share neither an ethnic heritage of Western society, traditional American ideals of limited government, traditional Christian societal values, nor linguistic or racial unity. In fact, they really don’t have much in common with America at large at all, and it’s not certain many of them want anything in common with us. This is not a promising mixture. Diversity was not what brought America through our first “Great Wave” of immigration. Similarity was. That similarity is lacking today.
However, we are assured today that diversity is meaningless – a mere difference in skin color, bedroom practices, or prayer time – and is completely irrelevant to our communal vision of what America is and should be. This is not true; diversity is not so trivial. People of diverse races, national origins, sexual identities and religions consistently tend to pursue vastly different and hotly conflicting political and social agendas. While individual exceptions abound, the diverse groups’ average priorities and f**gship causes are clear and recognizable and are key sources of political and social discord – year after year after year.
Diversity turns democracy into a disaster. Democracy is only pleasant when the majority is large. The smaller the majority, the greater the dissent. When barely half the population controls the other nearly half of the population, diversity is at its greatest and discord at its worst. When multiple diverse factions are each seeking their own diverse interests, then diversity is at its widest, and from there it’s a straight shot to tribalism – the antithesis of unity and opposite of strength.
At the neighborhood level, harmful effects of diversity have been identified in many studies. Harvard professor and political scientist Robert Putnam’s thorough study of 30,000 Americans found that (even after accounting for population density) “inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to r******r to v**e less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.” In other words, diversity does not unite communities; it destroys them.
To counter this bleak prognosis, we might ask, does diversity create any societal strengths at all? Surely the strength most commonly imagined is that exposure to diversity fosters the ability to live peacefully and respectfully in a diverse society and a diverse world. The critical question, then, is: Does being raised in and living in a homogeneous community (a community of more similar people) make one a h**eful bigot, incapable of seeing an issue from a different perspective, incapable of seeing diverse kinds of people as fellow human beings worthy of respect and fair treatment? Is every small town man, suburban mother, country girl and farm boy in greater homogeneous America a deplorable beacon of cruelty and h**e? My answer: of course not! Now, repeated exposure to diversity may tend to make one feel more comfortable in a diverse society, but this is a reflection of desensitization, not of moral improvement. There is nothing immoral or unnatural in living or in wanting to live among others who are similar to ourselves in both identity and ideals. Some level of difference and disagreement in our lives is inescapable, but that doesn’t mean we’re obligated to seek it out, or that there is anything wrong with us if we try to avoid it.
Avoiding diversity does not mean one “h**es” another group of people. One group does not need to be “bad” or “inferior” and another group “good” or “better” for difference itself to cause tension, either with a particular form of diversity as the actual dividing line in the argument, or with the presence of that diversity as the cause of the dividing line, splitting the other group and turning it against itself in an argument that would not exist if not for the presence of the diversity. Either way, avoiding the diversity avoids the division.
The benefits and value of diversity are vague, arguable and subjective and don’t hold much water compared to the benefits and value of homogeneity or similarity. Compelling a community, a people or a nation to welcome growing diversity in their midst or across their border is pushing a both risky and arbitrary value on people who may have a different opinion on the intrinsic value of diversity. If homogeneity is not a flaw, then why is it treated as a problem that needs to be fixed? If diversity is a weakness, then why is it so worshiped? Why is it so pushed?
Diversity is a judgment call, and pursuing it in one’s life and in one’s society is a personal decision, but the fact that diversity breeds disagreement and disagreement breeds division is difficult to reconcile with the claim that diversity makes us stronger. Similarity breeds like-mindedness, like-mindedness breeds unity, and unity makes a people strong.
Sacrificing unity for diversity may be our nation’s fate, but let’s shake off the politically correct blinders before we surrender to it. Diversity does not unite us. Diversity divides us. The more diverse we become, the weaker we become – and singing “Kumbaya” in 12 different languages isn’t going to change that. Enough of this “diversity is our strength” nonsense. Don’t believe everything your senator read in a fortune cookie.
http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/diversity-a-strength-hogwash/
Jul 27, 2017 20:17:04 #
well Don if you are so set on similarity, then go back to your families ancestral home, if they will have you.
Jul 27, 2017 20:24:53 #
Don G. Dinsdale wrote:
I Was Talking With a Friend of Mine The Other Day ... (show quote)
Excellent post Don
When I was born in 63 the USA was still close to 99% white, I may be off a percentage point or two. I'm sure some will call me a liar without checking, I don't care.
When desegregation started in mid to late 60s and my nice white neighborhood started getting dark, we moved. We moved to an area with mostly people like us, white, Christian, English speaking and patriotic. The chronicle and post labeled us the white flight, perfect. When they started bussing dark spots to our schools there was nothing but trouble, we all fought it literally. R**ts and fights were the norm for the first year until spot got the message that they were severely outnumbered and overwhelmed by our resolve.
I'm about to leave where I'm at again to move to a small, all white town again, because it just works better and I've lived it.
Jul 28, 2017 00:43:27 #
Diversity has never been a strength. Diversity is a failsafe. In other words, the only time diversity is a good thing is in a major species die-off or in impending business failure. The more diverse, the more likely part of the species/business/thing will survive the disaster. Otherwise, diversity is a toxic feature in a secure system because it draws off/divides up necessary assets.
Jul 28, 2017 09:48:22 #
JW wrote:
Diversity has never been a strength. Diversity is a failsafe. In other words, the only time diversity is a good thing is in a major species die-off or in impending business failure. The more diverse, the more likely part of the species/business/thing will survive the disaster. Otherwise, diversity is a toxic feature in a secure system because it draws off/divides up necessary assets.
Biologically, diversity is definitely a plus in lower organisms like flowers, grasses, trees and even food crops and chickens.. but that 'diversity' benefit seems to drop precipitously when humans and the 'human condition' are examined.
'Diversity' and all the rest of the poly-value progressive social engineering effort is, well, basically nonsense. What it eng****rs in humans is a splitting-up tendency and an accelerant to breaking up all cohesive forces which a strong culture or nation requires.
Progressives (DEMOCRATS) are into breaking up the American culture and the USA. It could not be more obvious.
Jul 28, 2017 10:16:33 #
S. Maturin wrote:
Biologically, diversity is definitely a plus in lo... (show quote)
Diversity forces competition between biological entities and their constituent groups. No matter how one looks at biological diversity, it means the status quo is being destabilized. Whether that is good or not depends on whether one's group is emerging or declining.
You are entirely correct that diversity does violence to social cohesion.
What I find hilarious is the Left's call for diversity juxtaposed with their prediction that society will only be fair when we are all brown. I can't imagine a thinking mind not seeing the irony in that.
Jul 28, 2017 10:22:31 #
JW wrote:
Diversity forces competition between biological en... (show quote)
Yup, that juxtaposition and its attendant nonsense would make fine SNL material... if the consequences were not so dire.
We both can see why the left HAD to gain control of the schooling of our children (notice; 'schooling', not "education"). The dumber they are, the easier they are to manipulate and control.
Up is down, left is right, wrong is right, black lives are the only lives that matter.
Jul 29, 2017 22:13:55 #
Robert Wilson
Loc: Texas
If b****s should suddenly wish to migrate back to Africa, what would we lose?
Jul 30, 2017 10:27:43 #
Robert Wilson wrote:
If b****s should suddenly wish to migrate back to Africa, what would we lose?
Ghetto b****s? Not much but employment opportunity for future correction officers, cops, lawyers, government social services employees, probation officers, and emergency care hospital folks.
However, you and I have both known b****s who were not only a credit to their race, but a real beneficial force for mankind. America has had many.
Jul 30, 2017 10:35:59 #
S. Maturin wrote:
Biologically, diversity is definitely a plus in lo... (show quote)
Nor is it limited to ethnicity but the entire culture of family and family values..
Society struggles where it once prospered..
In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Jul 30, 2017 12:35:48 #
lindajoy wrote:
Nor is it limited to ethnicity but the entire culture of family and family values..
Society struggles where it once prospered..
In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Society struggles where it once prospered..
In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Nietzsche? The "God is dead" nihilist Nietzsche-- that one?
Jul 30, 2017 20:06:32 #
S. Maturin wrote:
Nietzsche? The "God is dead" nihilist Nietzsche-- that one?
Well, if so then I never read it.. A
naturalistic critique of traditional morality and culture, an interest encouraged by good and evil yes and how he perceives religion yes, but I had not read that before..
I can believe it though as his anger in being sick so often ultimately ruled in his opinions I suspect.. Or at least I feel it did..
He was brilliant no doubt but that doesn't mean infallible..
Since you are familiar with his writings have you also read his position on the observation that a morality of compassion centers attention on the problem of suffering, presupposing that suffering is bad as such?? He seemed to dwell on this through at least two books and is what brought me to my conclusion that he was angry over that which he could not do~ heal himself .. physically and emotionally..
Jul 31, 2017 10:25:59 #
lindajoy wrote:
Well, if so then I never read it.. A br naturalist... (show quote)
Your take on his offerings is sufficiently accurate, I would think.
There are many afflicted personalities in history and not over-looking Christ, I'd say one of the most pitiful was Beethoven.. remember, he was all about his music and he was rendered deaf...
There re innumerable examples of such tragic happenings but your chosen philosopher-- your philosopher of choice, is unique in his statements concerning what I'd call total hopelessness and despair. I am not pretending to really possess any in-depth understanding of the guy, but his convictions run counter to what I would consider positive and uplifting.
Jul 31, 2017 12:06:19 #
S. Maturin wrote:
Your take on his offerings is sufficiently accurat... (show quote)
I do not disagree with your assessment S.. I too believe he was living in the negative, too brilliant and ultimately egotistical excusing anything not consistent to his research of published work..
I read two of his books when studying character profiles and physcopathic behavior..I was involved in a murder one case and in my research of it stumbled on this man..
His second book, name escapes me I got about half way through and didn't finish..
I only know what I read in those two books..
Jul 31, 2017 12:16:47 #
lindajoy wrote:
I do not disagree with your assessment S.. I too b... (show quote)
Anyone who 'spins-out' away from reading that man's thinking is forgiven, for sure. With a lot of philosophers- and again I claim to be no expert on either philosophy or philosophers- this is opinion, only- there is a certain 'superiority' assumed to the level often suspect of the writer thinking he is the next thing to God... unless, of course, the philosopher is Nietzsche in which case... God, well...
I have a great respect for and admiration of philosophers and their 'art', but, I am 'choosy' - - - -
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.